ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

one vote for one candidate for office and it's T&P for the GOP? K.
1?

10% of republicans have said that they are voting for Kamala. There's a reason so many former trump supporters and members of his administration have endorsed Kamala.

I know you think everyone is in your cult but there's still a few conservatives that think the GOP can be saved.
 
1?

10% of republicans have said that they are voting for Kamala. There's a reason so many former trump supporters and members of his administration have endorsed Kamala.

I know you think everyone is in your cult but there's still a few conservatives that think the GOP can be saved.
the only cult I know of is the cult of believing that every supporter of Trump is in a cult....the 'cult of the TDS mindfvcked' for short. The thoroughly mindfvcked by TDS dwell on meaningless numbers about republicans and post them just as meaninglessly, probably out of fear of those electoral votes going the wrong way.

So, speaking of your TDS mindfvckedness, what was posted and what I replied to referred to one person voting for one candidate, just as I said. As a matter of fact, when you hit the link the twitter or X or whatever the F it is provides, you are met with this...

VOICES: One vote for Sherrod Brown​


That's one vote for one candidate. C'mon joeyjohnjimmyjoe. Get a grip.
 
“TRUMP IS LYING ABOUT HIS HEIGHT!”

dd9nsgy-69cac871-a4f0-4905-9871-d395f31032cd.gif
first it was two scoops of ice cream, and now this scandalous exaggeration about his height. My support is wavering mightily.
 
I'm sure some here will suggest that Elon made this up, but the next time some suggests that the government overregulation is not an issue that needs to be addressed, remember this:

 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
1?

10% of republicans have said that they are voting for Kamala. There's a reason so many former trump supporters and members of his administration have endorsed Kamala.

I know you think everyone is in your cult but there's still a few conservatives that think the GOP can be saved.
MAGA are cheering that they might be polling better with Latino's and Black men, while ignoring that former GOP are either switching or sitting this one out.
 
I’ve wavered back and forth over who will win. On one hand there seems to be big turnout which typicall favors dems. On the other hand the polls in battleground states show it even but trump typically underperforms in the polls so if they’re even in the polls then that’s advantage trump. Whatever the outcome I’m just so disappointed in the state of us politics at the moment. Fuk em all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluetoe
I'm sure some here will suggest that Elon made this up, but the next time some suggests that the government overregulation is not an issue that needs to be addressed, remember this:

He says pacific. Landings are in the Indian ocean i think... flight path from Launch (texas) heads east.... so why is he talking about US pacific waters?

Overregulation is absolutely a thing. Red tape is common with regulation.

I think you could probably find better examples. The FAA has been pretty lenient with spaceX over the yrs (the launches can be pretty rough on the location ecologically).

US Marine & wildlife certainly wouldn't care about Indian ocean... But if some private company wants to crash stuff into the ocean then I'm FOR environmental and ecological impact. I have no doubt this would be regulation, but I suspect they'd be talking more about endangered species and stuff rather than "sharks". So it just feels like he's being hyperbolic.


ETA: i did some googling, and the US agencies DO care about Indian Ocean with respect to endangered species if the FAA is involved, and it is since he launches from the US. There's a whole bunch of species - specific turtles, specific whales, specific sharks, etc that they want businesses to account for.

I found the pdf... "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation completed a programmatic Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)Office of Protected Resources (OPR) for launch and reentry operations in the marine environment"

So the gubment wants to protect endangered species... seems like a good thing to me. Red-tape is a thing, but he's getting away with plenty of ecological impact at the launch site, so he should be grateful.
 
Last edited:
but trump typically underperforms in the polls so if they’re even in the polls then that’s advantage trump.
2022 the Red side didn't underperform in polls. Remember the Red Wave that was a purple knee-slapper? I don't think we can take anything from polls.
 
I'm sure some here will suggest that Elon made this up, but the next time some suggests that the government overregulation is not an issue that needs to be addressed, remember this:
Overregulation does need to be addressed, red tape sucks and wastes $, hinders progress in some cases. You could say women's healthcare is being over-regulated in states like Texas...
 
Another indicator of how bad things have become are the basic signs.

Trump low taxes / Kamala high taxes.

Tump low prices / Kamala high prices

^ those are actual signs i've been driving by.

Somebody thinks "low info" voters will fall for that shite, and they're probably right.
 
Another indicator of how bad things have become are the basic signs.

Trump low taxes / Kamala high taxes.

Tump low prices / Kamala high prices

^ those are actual signs i've been driving by.

Somebody thinks "low info" voters will fall for that shite, and they're probably right.
Reality is a bitch.
 
He says pacific. Landings are in the Indian ocean i think... flight path from Launch (texas) heads east.... so why is he talking about US pacific waters?

Overregulation is absolutely a thing. Red tape is common with regulation.

I think you could probably find better examples. The FAA has been pretty lenient with spaceX over the yrs (the launches can be pretty rough on the location ecologically).

US Marine & wildlife certainly wouldn't care about Indian ocean... But if some private company wants to crash stuff into the ocean then I'm FOR environmental and ecological impact. I have no doubt this would be regulation, but I suspect they'd be talking more about endangered species and stuff rather than "sharks". So it just feels like he's being hyperbolic.


ETA: i did some googling, and the US agencies DO care about Indian Ocean with respect to endangered species if the FAA is involved, and it is since he launches from the US. There's a whole bunch of species - specific turtles, specific whales, specific sharks, etc that they want businesses to account for.

I found the pdf... "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation completed a programmatic Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)Office of Protected Resources (OPR) for launch and reentry operations in the marine environment"

So the gubment wants to protect endangered species... seems like a good thing to me. Red-tape is a thing, but he's getting away with plenty of ecological impact at the launch site, so he should be grateful.
a better example might be what I saw him on a video talking about yesterday. I mean, that's when I saw the video, I don't know when the incident took place. But the EPA (I think) fined them $140,000 for dumping on the ground a bunch of gallons of plain old tap water at their launch site, without first having gotten a permit. He pointed out he had no idea a permit would be required, and that a good rainfall would have done the same thing.

I'm an environmental guy so I agree with protecting endangered species and a whole lot more. We are doing so much more to cause those species to have to be protected, that it seems bizarre to focus on something that in terms of probability, has about a snowball's chance of happening.
 
a better example might be what I saw him on a video talking about yesterday. I mean, that's when I saw the video, I don't know when the incident took place. But the EPA (I think) fined them $140,000 for dumping on the ground a bunch of gallons of plain old tap water at their launch site, without first having gotten a permit. He pointed out he had no idea a permit would be required, and that a good rainfall would have done the same thing.

I'm an environmental guy so I agree with protecting endangered species and a whole lot more. We are doing so much more to cause those species to have to be protected, that it seems bizarre to focus on something that in terms of probability, has about a snowball's chance of happening.
Agreed, that seems like a much better example of needless red-tape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluetoe
He says pacific. Landings are in the Indian ocean i think... flight path from Launch (texas) heads east.... so why is he talking about US pacific waters?

Overregulation is absolutely a thing. Red tape is common with regulation.

I think you could probably find better examples. The FAA has been pretty lenient with spaceX over the yrs (the launches can be pretty rough on the location ecologically).

US Marine & wildlife certainly wouldn't care about Indian ocean... But if some private company wants to crash stuff into the ocean then I'm FOR environmental and ecological impact. I have no doubt this would be regulation, but I suspect they'd be talking more about endangered species and stuff rather than "sharks". So it just feels like he's being hyperbolic.


ETA: i did some googling, and the US agencies DO care about Indian Ocean with respect to endangered species if the FAA is involved, and it is since he launches from the US. There's a whole bunch of species - specific turtles, specific whales, specific sharks, etc that they want businesses to account for.

I found the pdf... "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation completed a programmatic Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)Office of Protected Resources (OPR) for launch and reentry operations in the marine environment"

So the gubment wants to protect endangered species... seems like a good thing to me. Red-tape is a thing, but he's getting away with plenty of ecological impact at the launch site, so he should be grateful.
I hear those lithium mines are great for the environment.
 
No way are prices higher today with Biden/Harris than under Trump.



That lying bitch.

"That lying bitch."

no doubt. And what does she mean by saying that supermarket chains are 'passing along the savings' ? What savings? What she's trying to sell is that they are passing along higher prices from their suppliers, and she postures that she is going to put an end to that by dictating 'price-gouging' terms. She is a Marxist and a moron and a liar. In other words, she's a liberal and an extreme one in every regard.

Some are not playing by the rules? What rules? The ones that exist only in that empty commie skull?
 
2022 the Red side didn't underperform in polls. Remember the Red Wave that was a purple knee-slapper? I don't think we can take anything from polls.
I can't remember, what was Trump running for in 2022? We were talking about Trump, right?

He definitely tends to underperform in polls, bringing in votes that the polls don't uncover. I seem to remember a good example of that in 2016, he was in some election that the polls had him being slaughtered in but if memory serves, that didn't turn out to be the case. It's a little vague, but I seem to recall throngs of liberals looking to the heavens and screeching and sobbing uncontrollably.
 
I can't remember, what was Trump running for in 2022? We were talking about Trump, right?

He definitely tends to underperform in polls, bringing in votes that the polls don't uncover. I seem to remember a good example of that in 2016, he was in some election that the polls had him being slaughtered in but if memory serves, that didn't turn out to be the case. It's a little vague, but I seem to recall throngs of liberals looking to the heavens and screeching and sobbing uncontrollably.
I bet some of those crying libs are on this board.
 

I'll leave this here for our libs. I'll post it again the day following the election for you girls.
 
I’ve wavered back and forth over who will win. On one hand there seems to be big turnout which typicall favors dems. On the other hand the polls in battleground states show it even but trump typically underperforms in the polls so if they’re even in the polls then that’s advantage trump. Whatever the outcome I’m just so disappointed in the state of us politics at the moment. Fuk em all.

The trump campaign is flooding the averages with GOP favorable polls...they are buying the polls as part of their strategy. Over 70 of those polls have hit the averages since August. As a result, Kamala's lead appears to lessened. The non-partisan polls haven't moved much at all- she still has a 3 to 5 point lead.

The same thing (only not as many) happened in 2022; you know "the red wave" year.

Even the polymarket odds are being manipulated with $30 million in crypto being dumped to give the perception that trump is doing better than the reality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: blazers
The trump campaign is flooding the averages with GOP favorable polls...they are buying the polls as part of their strategy. Over 70 polls have hit the averages since August. As a result, Kamala's lead appears to lessened. The non-partisan polls haven't moved much at all- she still has a 3 to 5 point lead.

The same thing (only not as many) happened in 2022; you know "the red wave" year.

Even the polymarket odds are being manipulated with $30 million in crypto being dumped to give the perception that trump is doing better than the reality.
Lies No GIF
 
I can't remember, what was Trump running for in 2022? We were talking about Trump, right?

He definitely tends to underperform in polls, bringing in votes that the polls don't uncover. I seem to remember a good example of that in 2016, he was in some election that the polls had him being slaughtered in but if memory serves, that didn't turn out to be the case. It's a little vague, but I seem to recall throngs of liberals looking to the heavens and screeching and sobbing uncontrollably.
He was running for "Kingmaker" and fudged it up, like everything else he touches.
 
I can't remember, what was Trump running for in 2022? We were talking about Trump, right?

He definitely tends to underperform in polls, bringing in votes that the polls don't uncover. I seem to remember a good example of that in 2016, he was in some election that the polls had him being slaughtered in but if memory serves, that didn't turn out to be the case. It's a little vague, but I seem to recall throngs of liberals looking to the heavens and screeching and sobbing uncontrollably.

In 2016, the pollsters definitely underrepresented the gullible redneck, mentally retarded, trailer-trash part of the electorate. That has since been corrected with the non-partisan pollsters.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT